Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: matherandlowell who wrote (53074)	7/3/2006 2:16:00 AM
From: scratchmyback	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 197009

matherandlowell wrote: <<It sounds like you are assuming that QCOM will somehow be required to accept a lower royalty rate. What international body will mandate that a company should not be able to negotiate a royalty rate for use of its property? I'm just curious. Is there a court in Europe which would simply proclaim that the foundation patents for WCDMA are not worth the 5% royalty due QCOM? Which court has that power?>> I am not saying that "a company should not be able to negotiate a royalty rate for use of its property", I believe it is happening all the time. For example in San Diego and in Helsinki. But the 5% price tag on Qualcomm's WCDMA is another story. If Nokia's WCDMA patent portfolio is as big as Qualcomm's and also the number (and quality of essential patents) is equal, is there a court in the US which would simply proclaim that the Qualcomm's patents for WCDMA are worth the 5% royalty? When it comes to Qualcomm's claims re. GPRS and Edge, I think it is fair to assume that Nokia's CDMA2000 patent portfolio clearly outweighs them. And if Nokia doesn't have any use for its CDMA2000 patents in the future, they could as well use them just for bargaining. Or maybe they should start collecting a small but reasonable royalty from all the producers of CDMA2000 gear?